Report: Muslim cleric invited to pray over fallen SEALs damns them during service

Seal Team 6 is huge. It's so much more than just the ones that got Bin Laden. None of the members on the helicopter were on that raid. Seal Team 6
(DEVGRU) is made up of four shooter squadrons, a recon squadron, and a boats squadron. The four shooter squadrons are broken down into troops, which
are broken down into the teams that are mentioned.

What kind of world do we live in... where people overreact to such a degree where the Times can put out 2 paragraphs of such an important story with
just enough generalizations and zero reporting to get people all on the Islam nonsense... Fundamentalist Islam is just as crazy as fundamentalist
Christians throwing bombs in abortion clinics.

You religious types keep thinking that Jesus is somehow fundamentally different from Mohammad, and you can watch this world turn into a
anthropocentric-fireball because both had the same message.

And even if Obama is a Muslim and he just lied about it, hes a politician first. You don't like him you can vote for the other evil in the next
election that will do exactly the same # he has... You have to think about these things otherwise you are going to let those that run a few paragraphs
in an online paper set YOUR agenda for your thinking. And I can say honestly there are more important things to think of than that.

They may be the most barbaric at this time but christians are the most barbaric and vicious of ALL time. Just look up their history. To me both
religion are disgusting aberrations that only exist to give some confort and raison d'être to its partisans. Hypocrisy at its best.

Seal Team 6 is huge. It's so much more than just the ones that got Bin Laden. None of the members on the helicopter were on that raid. Seal Team 6
(DEVGRU) is made up of four shooter squadrons, a recon squadron, and a boats squadron. The four shooter squadrons are broken down into troops, which
are broken down into the teams that are mentioned.

Apparently, some people feel the President released information he should not have, and that it endangered the lives of all Seal Team Six unit
members.

During the event organized by a group called Freedom Watch, family members and former military personnel claimed President Obama turned the SEALs
group into a Taliban target after the administration revealed they had conducted the bin Laden raid.

Wow, first I'm an apologist for wanting to know the truth, now I'm defending Obama because I don't buy the assassination theory for why the Seals
died.

Wanting to know the truth is not being apologist. But there are many people who are apologists for this President.

Meantime, I posted what I observed in the blogosphere from a fairly casual search of the topic. People believe that he put people's lives in danger
by revealing the name of the Unit. Is that such a difficult concept?

People can believe that all they want, but even without Obama saying anything about who it was, I had it narrowed down to one of three units. If I
could do that that quickly, without having any inside sources, then just about anyone with knowledge of SOF units could have done it. This raid was
very specialized, and could only have been pulled off by a very small handful of units.

Regardless of if he said anything or not, it would have been difficult to know exactly who was on the helicopter, other than a US military unit.

People can believe that all they want, but even without Obama saying anything about who it was, I had it narrowed down to one of three units. If I
could do that that quickly, without having any inside sources, then just about anyone with knowledge of SOF units could have done it. This raid was
very specialized, and could only have been pulled off by a very small handful of units.

Regardless of if he said anything or not, it would have been difficult to know exactly who was on the helicopter, other than a US military unit.

ok sounds logical.

Seal Team 6 guy disagreed

“Aaron called me and said, ‘Mom, you need to wipe your social media clean of any reference to me or any of my buddies. Just disconnect
completely,’” Karen Vaughn said her son warned after Vice President Biden publicly identified the SEALs on May 3, 2011 — two days after the
raid. “He [Aaron] actually said to me, ‘Mom, there’s chatter, and all of our lives could be in danger, including yours’ … then I realized
all of those families, you know, you’re talking about a community of around three hundred families who were all of a sudden made targets by this
administration.”

What is a proper translation? I read the two which were provided by the Blaze article someone posted. Then I read the partial translation of someone
here.

Is there another "proper" translation you know of?

talking about something that didn't happen.

ok what didn't happen?

I am currently viewing video of the press conference, where the father of one of the fallen soldiers takes to task the administration and military
brass for the rules of engagement. The families of the fallen soldiers have a list of several complaints, and the nutty rules of engagement is one of
them and cited as being part of the reason the helicopter was shot down. Another one is outdated military equipment.

Michael Savage also took this administration to task on the rules of engagement in his book, "Trickle Up Poverty".

Of course Savage is not the only one to report on the stupid ways Obama is trying to fight a war

If It hasn't happened already I am calling early BS on this report and while I am not into any sky god religion the opposite might be true,then again
this is one of Rupert's publications basically FOX news in print.

Young Turks? He's claiming that a woman was "cleansed" from the military just for being a muslim(not for proselytizing or sharing her faith). If that
is the case, then why wasn't the Ft Hood shooter "cleansed" for being muslim?

You're right this report is bs from Young Turks. I wouldn't expect anything less from him.

Young Turks? He's claiming that a woman was "cleansed" from the military just for being a muslim(not for proselytizing or sharing her faith). If that
is the case, then why wasn't the Ft Hood shooter "cleansed" for being muslim?

You're right this report is bs from Young Turks. I wouldn't expect anything less from him.

edit on 11-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no
reason given)

She is not a Muslim she is a Catholic she have a Muslim sounding name but keep going with faux news they are fair and balanced as always..

Muslims want to install sharia law in every country in the world and if you don't agree then you will be enslaved or killed.

Well, the Muslims also believe that America wants to invade every muslim country and install western democracy and establish military bases. They also
believe that if they disagree, they will be shot or bombed by the invading western forces.

edit on 10-5-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

Well then I guess two wrongs make the insanity right in your
way of thinking.

If what you say is true then why is this administration giving money and arm's to Egypt and the same to Saudi Arabia, it would also seem we are about
to free Syria once again to the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood so It would seem that some Muslims like us for the fools we can be.

So who are THEY that think if they disagree THEY will be shot or bombed????

The fact you say your not a very nice guy and you have references for that makes me feel you are also full of your self and nothing I say will
matter, you will always have another redundant comment.

Oddly, I get the same feeling about you. It appears that your mind is made up in the matter, and at this stage you don't want to be confused by
facts. I'll leave you to it, then. It's not my job to force you to not live in fear of what you do not know.

I don't need to tell you who I am talking about, again you answered that in your last statement. Muslims want to install sharia law in every country
in the world and if you don't agree then you will be enslaved or killed. I'm sure if you have read the Qur'an you can reference that.

Well, my last statement was concerning "they", and specified that there were also a number of Christians included in that "they". How odd that you
fail to mention them, and yet continue to hammer at the Muslims. You seem to not be very well acquainted with many Muslims, going by your statements
here, and so appear to be guided by an abject fear of the unknown. What you are claiming here is nothing more than a stock fear-mongering charge,
probably taken from somewhere on the internet, that is being spread around to foster that fear of the unknown in the unknowing.

I have actually been told by "A" Muslim that he wanted me dead (but the context for that is irrelevant, and I won't tell you why), have you ever
been told that, face to face? I did not start living in fear of ALL Muslims because of that, yet you seem to have done exactly that, even in the
ABSENCE of such immediate threat. In spite of that threat, I've had more ACTUAL trouble out of Christians than I have Muslims, in spite of all the
fear people have tried to throw on me concerning Muslims.

I've actually had the "do you want sharia law in the US?" discussion with a number of Muslims face to face - have you? It doesn't sound like it.
it sounds more like you are getting your talking points from internet fear mongering sites.

Yes, I've read the Qur'an. No, I can't reference what you claim without taking isolated words out of context and changing their meaning. There is a
historical context, which you seem unaware of.

You don't have to buy into anything I say, research it with an open mind, if you chose not to believe it then that is your choice.

Sound advice! I sometimes wonder if you hear what you yourself say.

sometimes the way a person says something says it all and further debate is useless, you just have to agree to disagree.

Agreed.

there are no moderate Muslims, just those that don't understand the implications of there own religion..............point being Muslims people that
don't join the jihad when the radicals tell them to will be shown no mercy..........I know Muslim people and they worry a lot more then I do about
the future.

I dislike the phrase "moderate Muslims", but sometimes use it myself to get a point across to people who understand nothing else. I don't believe
there is such a thing, there are only "Muslims" and "people who want you to THINK they are Muslims" in the Islamic camp. Let's take the Muslim
Brotherhood as an example - they build the world "Muslim" right into their organizational title, to mislead people into thinking they are a
religious organization, when they are in all reality a political one. Using your religion to achieve political goals would appear to disqualify it as
a real religion - some Christians do that, too, in spite of the prohibition that Jesus himself placed upon such activity - "render unto Caesar the
things belonging to Caesar, and unto God those things which belong to God".

My point here is that just because someone tells you they are something, that doesn't mean they really ARE. Some times, it's just a case of wolves
in sheep clothing. If you want to know what they really are, look to see what fruit they bear. That is Christianity 101, so often forgotten by alleged
Christians. Muslims are no different - ANY tree can be identified by the fruit it bears. If it bears political fruit, it's not a religious tree.

If you actually DO know any Muslims who fear for the future as you claim, ask THEM what the difference is between themselves and, for example,
Wahabbis. Once you know the difference, you will hopefully be less likely to lump them all into the same basket.

If what you say is true then why is this administration giving money and arm's to Egypt and the same to Saudi Arabia, it would also seem we
are about to free Syria once again to the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood....

I was just giving you a perspective. To the middle east, the Americans and its allies are the biggest terrorists they've known.

And if what you said about Muslims wanting to install Shariah in every country is true.... why is it that we have Muslim countries living alongside
minority populations of Jews or Christians... WITHOUT forcefully converting them to Islam or forcing them to obey Shariah?

Originally posted by nenothtu
If I answer "yes" to any of the above (because I honestly can answer yes to some of it), are we going to try and raise the bar again, and keep doing
that until we finally reach impossible qualifications?

I might ask the same of you - are you any of those things? If not, is there some particular reason we should accept your interpretation over that of a
Muslim who lives the religion?

I didn't offer an interpretation or translation of the verse.

I did question the reliability of a translation by someone with a dog in the race.

Well then, this is where the debate ends, before it goes off into uncharted and angry territory. It's more than just a matter of implying that I or
my wife are agenda-driven liars, in spite of the fact that there are several hundred million people all around the planet who can check the veracity
of the translations. It's the fact that you are pushing a particular interpretation of Islam against all available facts, and using manipulated
statistical data to support an otherwise insupportable argument.

What is a proper translation? I read the two which were provided by the Blaze article someone posted. Then I read the partial translation of someone
here.

Is there another "proper" translation you know of?

There are several translations available on the internet. I'm not finding any so far that agree with the one presented in the blogosphere, EXCEPT the
ones found in the blogosphere. They all seems to agree fairly well with one another, and to be at radical odds with the ones in the independent
sources or the ones in the Islamic sources.

What the cleric recited, which seems to be the bone of contention, was verses 59:20 and 59:21 of the Qur'an. What appears to have been presented by
the lawyer to the families as a "translation of what the cleric said" was actually a translation of those verses, BUT with the inclusion of
Wahabbist exegetical material, not found in the Qur'an, and not actually recited by the cleric. It appears to me that the non-Qur'anic, exegetical
material was interspersed within the actual verses with intent to mislead and stir contention. In other words, they salted Wahabbist opinion into the
actual verses of the Qur'an, then made the claim that the cleric SPOKE THOSE WORDS, when he did not.

In order to get a "proper translation", all you have to do is go to any Qur'an translation online and search for verses 59:20 and 59:21. You would
have to go to an Arabic speaker and have them listen to what the cleric said in order to confirm that he was actually doing what clerics do, reciting
the Qur'an verbatim, rather than including the exegesis. Of course, for that to work, you would have to trust the Arabic speaker, which is a quality
that seems to be in short supply in this thread. It does no good to do it if one goes into it with the preconceived notion that the Arabic speaker is
going to lie about the translation. if you have already determined not to trust the Arab because they might be a Muslim with an agenda, there is
really no point in asking them to listen.

Of course, if you feel you can't trust the Muslim because they are a Muslim, then you are doomed to be led around by the nose and believe what you
are being told to believe by people who DON'T speak Arabic, but who DO have an agenda.

If I have a question about mechanical engineering, I go to a mechanical engineer, not a used car salesman. I do not go in assuming that I can't trust
the mechanical engineer to know his subject.

If I have a question about botany, I go to a botanist, not a washing machine repairman. I do not go in assuming I cannot trust the botanist to know
his subject.

Likewise, if I have a question about Islam, I go to a Muslim, not a lawyer. I do not go in assuming I cannot trust the Muslim to know his subject.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.